Are the ego/sense of self and self-image issues related at all?

[Gesundheit2]

Can someone have a very big sophisticated ego, and at the same time be free from all self-image issues?

Conversely, can someone be in a state of total no-self and still have major self-image issues?

My experience says yes to both questions, but that's a new distinction to me. I always thought there's a correlation between the two as if they're one thing, but that correlation seems delusional now.

I always had the inclination to demonize the ego as something bad and unnecessary, due to cultural upbringing. But now after (another ) full deconstruction, things have taken another course and started going full-circle. Lately, I've been discovering the importance and value of the ego on an experiential level. And what's most shocking to me is that sometimes it seems that the ego is one of the best ways to fully heal the self-image from all insecurities, and that seems like a prerequisite, contrary to what I always thought. It's like the ego at a certain point becomes/starts turning into a powerful master that can take ownership of all of one's problems and then solve them. I'm still not completely sure, nor completely clear about this, at least not in the biggest picture possible, so I'm looking for more perspectives to explore.

I feel like there's a certain series of insights surfacing for me here, but I'm not quite sure I get it. I mean if someone has a relatively little ego and a lot of self-image issues, to me that must indicate a miserable life (my parents as a prime example). On the other hand, if someone has a relatively big ego and not much self-image issues (Leo, I think), that means they're probably quite happy and successful. Most people, in this case, fall in the grey area in between on different lengths of the spectrum.

What do you guys think?

Edited July 19, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[lmfao]

People might be using the word ego in different ways, or in ways which don't make sense. All people can colloquially use the word ego when they see someone arrogant, but that won't be the same as what a Buddhist might mean when they say "ego". 

You could colloquially refer to all sorts of highly realised beings as being very egoic, perhaps. 

In regards to your second question. Meditation perhaps won't solve certain psychological things, for some people. So what I see there is importance of self actualisation and consciousness work. Or more accurately maybe, it's holistic approach to consciousness work where spiritual practices aren't the only thing to do, and you try to overcome things in all domains of your life. 

Edited July 19, 2021 by lmfao

[Zigzag Idiot]

An idea that caught on with me is that we have to develop a healthy ego before it can be transcended. Maybe I heard Ken Wilber put it that way. The idea is also repeated elsewhere such as the Fourth Way.
I just got 2 entries out of 18.

Confusion About the Term "Ego"

Here we digress to point out a source of confusion about the term “ego.” Readers who know both the spiritual and psychological literatures will find the term freely used in both, but with no general agreement on what the term refers to. This ambiguity often leads to confusion. The literature on spiritual development, on essential or inner development, on all matters of religious concern, generally uses the term “ego” to mean something which is seen as the barrier to spiritual realization. The literature on depth psychology, however, uses the term with a very different meaning. The ego referred to by Freud, and which ego psychology studies, is not the ego which is the barrier to spiritual development. They are two different concepts. The psychoanalytic term “ego” refers, rather, to the functional self, which is the site, organizer, and coordinator of the functions of perception, memory, mobility, and so on. There is, however, a concept in depth psychology and ego psychology that coincides with the ego of spiritual literature: it is called the “ego-identity,” and is sometimes referred to as the sense of self, or the sense of identity. This sense of self or separate identity is the main concern of ego developmental theory. This identity is, in fact, the acme, the most important outcome of ego development. It is ultimately the organizing center of the psychic apparatus. This psychic apparatus includes as one of its units the Freudian ego. In other words, the Freudian ego is part of the mind, is a structure or a structured process in it, while the self is a sense of identity and a center of action. The exact sense in which the ego identity is a barrier to spiritual development will become clear in later chapters.

The Void, pg. 9

 

Object Relations Theory

Object relations theory has become the dominant psychoanalytic theory of ego development. Its main insight is that the ego develops, primarily through the integration of early experiences, into organized mental structures. These mental structures, termed ego structures, are systems of memories that have become organized through the processes of assimilation or introjection, identification, integration, synthesis, and so on, into an overall schema patterning the self. 

The Point of Existence, pg. 54

Taken from https://www.diamondapproach.org/glossary/refinery_phrases/ego

 

Other categories in the glossary

Ego

Ego Activity

Ego Alien/Ego Syntonic

Ego Boundaries

Ego Death

Ego Defense

Ego Deficiency

Ego Development

Ego Functions

Ego Ideal

Ego Identity

Ego Inadequacy

Ego Life

Ego Line

Ego Metabolism

Ego Self

Ego Structures

[sara373]

@lmfao you mean like shadow work? 

[Gesundheit2]

@lmfao @Zigzag Idiot

Thanks. Will contemplate on that.

[ZzzleepingBear]

5 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Can someone have a very big sophisticated ego, and at the same time be free from all self-image issues?

Conversely, can someone be in a state of total no-self and still have major self-image issues?

To your first question, yes.

Second question. No.

No-self implies that you are as is. Self-image issues are conflicting beliefs that you hold the illusory self togheter with.

A example of sel- image is: "I'm a good driver". This can't be true, you just know how to drive according to the public collective agreements on how one are expected to drive a car. "I'm a good driver" implies a self-image of a certain someone driving the car better than others. Totally self justified for no useful reason other than as an identity (self-image). Even a so called terrible driver could have the self-image of being a "good driver".

[Nahm]

Can someone have a very big sophisticated separate self, and at the same time be free from all self-image issues?

Conversely, can the separate self be in a state of total no-self and still have major self-image issues?

I always had the inclination to demonize the separate self as something bad and unnecessary, due to cultural upbringing. But now after (another ) full deconstruction, things have taken another course and started going full-circle. Lately, I've been discovering the importance and value of the separate self on an experiential level. And what's most shocking to me is that sometimes the separate self seems that the separate self is one of the best ways to fully heal the self-image from all insecurities, and that seems like a prerequisite, contrary to what I always thought. It's like the separate self at a certain point becomes/starts turning into a powerful master that can take ownership of all of one's problems and then solve them. I'm still not completely sure, nor completely clear about this, at least not in the biggest picture possible, so I'm looking for more perspectives to explore.

I feel like there's a certain series of insights surfacing for me here, but I'm not quite sure I get it. I mean if someone has a relatively little separate self and a lot of self-image issues, to me that must indicate a miserable life (my parents as a prime example). On the other hand, if someone has a relatively big separate self and not much self-image issues (Leo, I think), that means they're probably quite happy and successful. Most people, in this case, fall in the grey area in between on different lengths of the spectrum.

What do you guys think?

[hyruga]

Of course, the ego and self-image are related. There are healthy ego and bad ego. In this case, we will refer ego as mainly bad.

The self-image is what you think of yourself as. For example, if you think of yourself as someone who is capable of earning 50k a year and nothing more, you will act in accordance to that image. So once you earn an amount similar to 50k a year, you will stop working so hard and think it's enough. 

After contemplation, you now want to see yourself as earning more eg 100k per year or more. But what you see is different from what you feel. So your ego will come out and say 'No, you are not good enough' 'You can't do that' etc.

Edited July 20, 2021 by hyruga

[Nahm]

@nuwu

Indeed. So simple in fact, I believe consciousness - is already a duality implied. 

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

Can someone have a very big sophisticated separate self, and at the same time be free from all self-image issues?

Conversely, can the separate self be in a state of total no-self and still have major self-image issues?

I always had the inclination to demonize the separate self as something bad and unnecessary, due to cultural upbringing. But now after (another ) full deconstruction, things have taken another course and started going full-circle. Lately, I've been discovering the importance and value of the separate self on an experiential level. And what's most shocking to me is that sometimes the separate self seems that the separate self is one of the best ways to fully heal the self-image from all insecurities, and that seems like a prerequisite, contrary to what I always thought. It's like the separate self at a certain point becomes/starts turning into a powerful master that can take ownership of all of one's problems and then solve them. I'm still not completely sure, nor completely clear about this, at least not in the biggest picture possible, so I'm looking for more perspectives to explore.

I feel like there's a certain series of insights surfacing for me here, but I'm not quite sure I get it. I mean if someone has a relatively little separate self and a lot of self-image issues, to me that must indicate a miserable life (my parents as a prime example). On the other hand, if someone has a relatively big separate self and not much self-image issues (Leo, I think), that means they're probably quite happy and successful. Most people, in this case, fall in the grey area in between on different lengths of the spectrum.

What do you guys think?

The separate self thinks that the separate self has Microsoft Word and not much time, and so the separate self used the "find and replace" function to alter the original post like this 

Edited July 19, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[Nahm]

@Gesundheit2

Ha! I know right?! Suffering’s hilarious!

 

 

 

?

[lmfao]

@sara373 Yeah. For me it means looking at random social fears, dishonesty, etc

[VeganAwake]

Ego, sense of self and self-image are the same thing.... identification

It's the entire self construct.

If someone says you are ugly it feels bad because there is identification as the body.

If someone says you are stupid it feels bad because there is identification as the mind.

If someone says you are beautiful it feels good because there is identification as the body.

If someone says you are smart it feels good because there is identification as the mind.

It's not about the identification being strong or weak.... it's recognizing it's completely unreal.

❤

 

 

 

 

[4201]

18 hours ago, Nahm said:

Can someone have a very big sophisticated separate self, and at the same time be free from all self-image issues?

Conversely, can the separate self be in a state of total no-self and still have major self-image issues?

I always had the inclination to demonize the separate self as something bad and unnecessary, due to cultural upbringing. But now after (another ) full deconstruction, things have taken another course and started going full-circle. Lately, I've been discovering the importance and value of the separate self on an experiential level. And what's most shocking to me is that sometimes the separate self seems that the separate self is one of the best ways to fully heal the self-image from all insecurities, and that seems like a prerequisite, contrary to what I always thought. It's like the separate self at a certain point becomes/starts turning into a powerful master that can take ownership of all of one's problems and then solve them. I'm still not completely sure, nor completely clear about this, at least not in the biggest picture possible, so I'm looking for more perspectives to explore.

I feel like there's a certain series of insights surfacing for me here, but I'm not quite sure I get it. I mean if someone has a relatively little separate self and a lot of self-image issues, to me that must indicate a miserable life (my parents as a prime example). On the other hand, if someone has a relatively big separate self and not much self-image issues (Leo, I think), that means they're probably quite happy and successful. Most people, in this case, fall in the grey area in between on different lengths of the spectrum.

What do you guys think?

I can relate to this. I liked myself better prior to realizing no-self. Back then I was in a process of becoming more and more awesome as a person and it was amazing.

But after getting into my mind that there is no self, all behaviors which hint that there is a self are being judged as "shouldn't be". Why can't I stop identifying? Why can't I stop creating a self? In my experience this creates a lot of hate toward the self because it is judged as something that shouldn't be, the ultimate source of problems.

It seems that the problem isn't "no-self" though but simply identification with no-self. This idea of a self who has realized no-self which is then applied to reality as a comparison of "what should be" as opposed to "what is".

The question itself, "should we create a separate self to heal" implies we have to make a decision about it, either doing it or not. Trying to intellectually create a self for the sake of healing sounds funny to me. But also trying to not have a self also doesn't seem to work from my experience. It seems the only way out would be to accept the separate self when it comes up instead of judging it as "inapropriate" or "sign or my lack of awakening".

At least for me, accepting the self is difficult because the state of no-self is associated with happiness, with "desirable" and anytime I actually accept the self, the self disappear and it is likely followed by an idea which enforces that no self = desirable. To notice this idea when it is thought, would probably help.

As for the actual question, I don't think artificially creating a self helps healing but I do think you should accept your current separate self, even if you think you don't have one because you are identified with the idea that you have no separate self.

Edited July 20, 2021 by 4201

[Nahm]

@4201

In case it wasn’t noticed, that was a copy of the op, with a slight change to ‘separate self’ noting identification with thoughts. I hear ya though, identification is identification. ‘The separate self’ really is just the activity of identification wether me, him, her, self, no self, God or a toaster. 

[mandyjw]

You're trying to figure out the relationship between sense of self and being happy. This relationship is profound, but only found in our direct experience of feeling. The self cannot have happiness. Happiness is not something anyone has or anyone can have or could have had, happiness is only now. The thought of happiness is different than the experience of happiness or even the Peace/Happiness behind that. The thought happiness is conflated and confused with things, events, circumstances.

 Having negative self worth, insecurity and positive self worth in the form of pride are two polarities of the same thought movement of the assumed separate self. The self can look back on itself and like what it sees and need thoughts about others to uphold that, or it may look at itself and not like what it sees and use thoughts of others to uphold that. In any case this is like doing a sprint with your head turned to look behind you the whole time. 

Edited July 20, 2021 by mandyjw

[mandyjw]

54 minutes ago, Nahm said:

‘The separate self’ really is just the activity of identification wether me, him, her, self, no self, God or a toaster. 

[Nahm]

@mandyjw Holy spot on meme! 

Brought to mind… bread never comes out of a toaster, only the toaster is the toasted. 

[mandyjw]

@Nahm No kidding, I just remembered I left something in the toaster. Not feeling so hungry anymore though. 

[4201]

 @Nahm Oops, should have been more attentive 

Makes more sense now